Scanning old photos

ems_12

Hi folks, I hope everyone is well in current times. I have received some sentimental old family photos & I'd like to scan them all (high resolution, as close to original as possible).....does anyone have recommendations for a machine or product (scanner!!) that I could buy for this task? (The intent is so that family members have electronic copies and can print their own)

DaireQuinlan

For prints, almost any modern flatbed scanner will do the job. Get one of the entry level Epson or Canon models and it should be fine. Negatives are a different story.

elperello

Ask around some of the family might have an old printer/scanner that's no longer in use for printing.

The scanner function will still work and do the job for you.

Great idea to make use of the time we have on our hands these days.

magicbastarder

how many photos? unless it's a lot, as mentioned, borrowing one is probably the best way to go.

Heebie

How big is the biggest one of them? How small is the smallest?
It can make a big difference on how best to handle them.

You also say you want as closer to the original as possible... But the resolution is how many dots per inch. You're best off deciding how big you want someone to be able to print them at. If it's wallet sized, and you want to be able to print and 8x10, you'll want to scan at 2400-3600dpi. If you have a 16x20 but you only want to print it at 8x10, you can scan at at 150dpi.

If you're at 8x10 and under, most scanners will do an ok job.
If you have bigger sizes, a bigger scanner bed is necessary and could get pricey. Proper lighting and a duplicating easel with a good digital camera (if you already have one) might make more sense.

So... How big are the originals and how big would you want to print them? If they're old black & white photos and they're sharp focus, there's probably enough data there to go at least 4x the original, maybe as much as 10x if you don't mind a "soft focus" look.

spurious

A relative may well have a printer that has a scanner in it too.
When saving the files, I try to put as much info as to who is in the photo in the file name as I can.

If you are in Dublin, I would have no issue doing them for you for free. Well, maybe a packet of chocolate digestives, at 2 metres distance.

magicbastarder

spurious wrote: »

Well, maybe a packet of chocolate digestives, at 2 metres distance.

he'd want to have good aim, unless you've a really large mouth.

elperello

magicbastarder wrote: »

he'd want to have good aim, unless you've a really large mouth.

That would be a photo worth scanning:)

Adrian.Sadlier

Scanning old photos can be a real chore, especially if you have a lot to scan (100+). I have burnt out 2 scanners doing it over the years. And it can be very slow!

A viable alternative is as follows:

If you have a lot to do and have access to a medium/high megapixel camera a better way might be to photograph them. A 12Mp camera will give the equivalent of a 5"x 7" photo scanned at 600dpi optical resolution.

Set up your camera on a tripod in an area with good (preferably indirect light to avoid a "shine"). Use natural light, not indoor lights if possible, otherwise you would have to adjust the colour temperature (white balance) in post. If you must use artificial light set your camera to a fixed white balance, not "auto". This means you will not have to adjust the white balance for each photo. A table top is a good option or even the floor, as long as the surface is flat. If the photos are a bit curled get something to weigh down the edges (steel rulers etc).

Set the camera to manual focus, aperture priority and use a remote (or the cameras timer) to take the photos. Turn off image stabilization as this does not work well with tripods. Set the aperture to the optimum level for your lens (usually 2 - 3 stops above the widest available).

Then away you go.

Cameraman

For general use, I've found that photographing them with my phone camera produces perfectly acceptable digital versions for sharing purposes.

Most of my old prints are small, and I've tried out various "scanner" apps - but not found the perfect one yet. Sometimes I also tweak them a bit in Snapseed.

I then put them in Google Photos albums and share. The quality is not as good as a scanner, but perfectly acceptable for viewing on a phone etc.

I do intend buying a scanner eventually for my old slides and negatives - and the one I'll probably go for is the Epson V600 or maybe one of the higher versions V800/V850 etc.

GBX

Cameraman wrote: »

For general use, I've found that photographing them with my phone camera produces perfectly acceptable digital versions for sharing purposes.

Most of my old prints are small, and I've tried out various "scanner" apps - but not found the perfect one yet. Sometimes I also tweak them a bit in Snapseed.

I then put them in Google Photos albums and share. The quality is not as good as a scanner, but perfectly acceptable for viewing on a phone etc.

There is also a Google app that will save them to your Google Photos app

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.apps.photos.scanner&hl=en_IE

ems_12

Sorry folks, I missed the further replies, thanks for getting back to my query!

There is a lot of photos, 100+. Most 6x4" prints, a few B&W but mostly colour. A small proportion are larger (A4 size max), older, B&W prints.

I have no time limit so could essentially spend months doing 10-20 scans per day.......! I've tried to take photos of the prints but only have camera phone, and not the right light so there's often shine/glare. I'd really like a good quality scan so don't mind setting up a scanner for this & spending time doing it.

Spurious, that's a great offer, thanks so much, but there's a large volume of photos and the family might kill me if I release them to a stranger :P

Oletimer

I have been down that route, scanning old negatives, if you have them with you with the original prints. Luckily I had hung on to my Nikon Coolpix film negative scanner, but as they are so hard to get hold of these days, even on eBay, I would suggest a Kenro film negative scanner.They are generally around £100 brand new, or you may get one cheaper. Ideal to scan negatives and then get them to the digital resolution you want. Time consuming, yes, but worth the effort to save old print photographs. And you have stated you do have time, so there.

stannman

@ems_12 - did you find a solution that met your needs?

I'm interested in scanning photos from family photo albums and am looking for a photo scanner recommendation.

Also interested if having photos in albums with sticky page surface beneath will be an issue?

Thanks...

Heebie

stannman wrote: »

I'm interested in scanning photos from family photo albums and am looking for a photo scanner recommendation.

Also interested if having photos in albums with sticky page surface beneath will be an issue?

I'm an Epson scanner fan, because for prints and film, they do a pretty good job. For film, they're not as good as a Nikon Coolscan... but they're nowhere near as expensive, either!

I have an older Epson Perfection V500 Photo. I think the current version of it is like the 650 or something. It can do 35mm strip film, slides, and medium-format. Third-party negative carriers can be had to improved the scan quality.. if you're fussy and don't care about money, it'll get you closer to the result of something like a Nikon Coolscan for film. Not all the way there, but still probably less than 1/3 of the price.

As for "sticky" album pages... they can be very, very, very bad, especially if the prints are glossy. But.. if the sticky bits are on the BACK of the photo, that's not as bad, unless you can't get the photos out of the album, or get the album page into the bed of the scanner.

If the photos have a glossy finish, any plastic covering over the top of it might have stuck to it, and that's never fun. Getting the photo detached from such plastics can end up destroying it. Use care.

Adrian.Sadlier

Heebie wrote: »

I'm an Epson scanner fan, because for prints and film, they do a pretty good job. For film, they're not as good as a Nikon Coolscan... but they're nowhere near as expensive, either!

I have an older Epson Perfection V500 Photo. I think the current version of it is like the 650 or something. It can do 35mm strip film, slides, and medium-format. Third-party negative carriers can be had to improved the scan quality.. if you're fussy and don't care about money, it'll get you closer to the result of something like a Nikon Coolscan for film. Not all the way there, but still probably less than 1/3 of the price.

As for "sticky" album pages... they can be very, very, very bad, especially if the prints are glossy. But.. if the sticky bits are on the BACK of the photo, that's not as bad, unless you can't get the photos out of the album, or get the album page into the bed of the scanner.

If the photos have a glossy finish, any plastic covering over the top of it might have stuck to it, and that's never fun. Getting the photo detached from such plastics can end up destroying it. Use care.

The latest Epson Flatbed scanner is the 850 Pro - I have the 750 Pro. They have the neg holders for 35mm and medium format film. The only "flaw" with neg scanning is the curl on the negs. This can be addressed with add-on holders.

For scanning photos, they are great and the optical scanning resolution far exceeds the capabilities of printed film shots. Ignore "digital" resolution for any make of scanner - it is just using software interpolation to figure out where the extra dots would be. You don't need a scanner for that. Optical resolution is what counts.

As for scanning photos from an album with "sticky" pages. If the album pages are themselves sticky then don't. They will mark the glass of the flatbed scanner and either damage it or necessitate cleaning the glass thoroughly after each scan. It's a slow enough process without that.

An alternative is to use a high resolution camera, set it up on a tripod, in a controlled lighting environment. It can take a while to get the lighting right (colour temperature and glare being the 2 main issues that spring to mind). One you have the setup right just photograph the prints. You will be able to get through a huge number of prints in a short period of time).

I realised this after burning out 3 scanners in the past and now having a 36MP camera.

However, having scanned all of my prints I was able to share them with the family at no cost (Google Drive etc.) and get to embarrass my now adult children on Facebook, Instagram, Tik Tok etc. with images they have long forgotten (or wish I had forgotten).

Good luck with the project.

Adrian

Best of luck.

Heebie

Adrian.Sadlier wrote:

An alternative is to use a high resolution camera, set it up on a tripod, in a controlled lighting environment. It can take a while to get the lighting right (colour temperature and glare being the 2 main issues that spring to mind). One you have the setup right just photograph the prints. You will be able to get through a huge number of prints in a short period of time).

This mimics a method we used in the first photo lab I worked in. Of course, we were shooting it onto film.

The setup was a flat tray, big enough for about 16"x24" source material
There were constant lights at about 25% of the way in from the corner on the long side. The lights were at about 45 degree angles at the target from about 6-8" above the edge of the target. This gave a pretty even light with generally no glare from the lights visible to camera. The camera mounted to a mount that could move up and down, that put the lens of the camera exactly dead centre of the target frame.
50mm macro lens. Generally we went to slide film, tungsten balanced, as they were tungsten bulbs, not daylight balanced. Slide film has a higher particle density than negative film, so the image was sharper. (Especially on ISO 64)
It worked,

I think I could duplicate the effect with two led panels, my manfrotto tripod, and my dslr.
Scanner and raw mode are both 42-bit color, so of the focus is right, it should look great.
No dust reduction/removal from ICE, though.

fixXxer

Found this thread just in time. Have picked up two old family albums, with pictures ranging from 1920 up to the mid 1960s (one even looks very Man on the Bridge). Problem is they are all glued in place, so the flat bed scanner isn't working very well. Was looking at ways to scan them that didn't destroy the images or the albums. Might have to look at this camera/tripod set up.

AndrewJRenko

I'm starting to archive some old photos - mostly loose 7x5 or 6x4, but some stuck in albums with the plastic covers. All very much amateur shots, sporting events, camping trips, pissups and more - one very full shopping bag of albums and wallets of photos.

I have a standard HP home printer/scanner that can do 100dpi up to 1200 dpi. I don't really want to get into the mounted camera approach, as I'm far from expert and don't have any lighting kit at all.

Any advice on any of the following would be welcome.

1) Is it worth while scanning at higher than 300 dpi? The scanner can do it, but I have to control it from the laptop rather than from the control screen on the printer/scanner itself, so it's just a bit more awkward. Is there any real benefit in going for the higher resolution, even though more awkward and slower?

2) Am I better off scanning one at a time, or loading 2-4 photos onto the scanner than cropping them out using Windows Photos or similar? Obviously less scanning time with the latter approach, and more post processing time instead.

3) Any tips on tagging? I'm just trying to record names and locations in the file title, but maybe I'd be better off using proper tagging or similar?

All thoughts welcome.

magicbastarder

no point going greater than 300dpi, i'd be surprised if the native resolution of the scanner is much higher - it's probably interpolating at 1200dpi anyway.

i usually load up the platen and scan as many as possible in one pass, but this can depend on whether your scanner software tries to colour correct the shots - if it does, you may want it to if a shot has colour shifted and you need to correct it - but if you don't want it to, scanning multiple images can average out colour casts and be less likely to result in an image being wrongly corrected. this is usually a minor point though.